Back
2021 MarsdenLR 1146
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SUPPIAH KANDASAMY – Appellant
Versus
LEE LEONG TECK & ORS (ENCLS 5 7 & 8) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCvC-240-06/2021]
A consent judgment is binding, and allegations of fraud must be substantiated with documentary evidence; mere allegations are insufficient to raise a triable issue.
Headnote:(A) Moneylenders Act – Consent Judgment dated 9 August 2019 – The plaintiff failed to substantiate allegations against the defendant, refuting the ownership of the property. Res judicata applies as previous litigation and terms of the consent judgment were clear and uncontested. The court requires documentary evidence to counter the validity of prior judgments (Paras 1, 12, 40, 42).
(B) Legal principles on striking out under O 18 R 19 ROC 2012 established; courts must not strike out claims unless they are obviously unsustainable. The plaintiff's statements lacked evidence to raise any triable issues, rendering the claims against the defendants legally inadequate (Paras 25, 26).
Facts of the case: The plaintiff, Suppiah, challenged a consent judgment regarding property ownership and failed to produce evidence to support his allegations of fraud. His claims were deemed res judicata based on past agreements and judgments (Paras 32-32, 46).
Findings of Court: This court held the consent judgment valid, affirming the defendant's ownership and dismissed the plaintiff's claims due to lack of evidence (Paras 44-48).
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the consent judgment, the applicability of res judicata, and whether the plaintiff could establish fraud without substantive evidence (Paras 37, 38).
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the necessity of documentary evidence to counteract the doctrine of res judicata, thereby upholding the consent judgment and defendant's title (Para 42).
Result: The plaintiff's suit was struck out with costs awarded to the defendants.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] A litigant who has lost in a previous court suit in the subordinate court but files a fresh action in the High court to nullify or negate the effect of the judgment in the previous suit by challenging the legality of the same transaction on ground of alleged contravention with the provisions of the Moneylenders Act must be adequately prepared in advance before he comes to the court the second time over the same subject-matter. When faced with an application for striking out of the second action on ground of res judicata or vexatious, the plaintiff in the second action over the same subject-matter cannot rest on his laurel by merely reproducing in his affidavits in opposition the same allegations in the Statement of Claim without adducing any documentary evidence to substantiate, back up or give some semblance of credence to his allegations.
[2] In an adversarial system of administration of justice, the court hearing an application for striking out of a re-litigation action on ground of res judicata does not have the liberty to imagine or impute triable issues from the bare allegations of the plaintiff which do not have any documentary evidence to substantiate, back up or give some semblance of credence to the plaintiff's allegations.
Background Of Litigations
[3] The Plaintiff herein, Suppiah A/L Kandasamy (hereinafter referred to as "Suppiah"), was sued by the 1st Defendant herein, Lee Leong Teck (hereinafter referred to as "LT Lee") in Bangi Magistrate's court Suit No BA-A72NCvC-157-04/2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Magistrate's court Suit") for arrears of rental under a Tenancy Agreement signed between LT Lee as landlord and Suppiah as tenant in relation to the premises known as PT 566, HSD 6581 Daerah Semenyih, Mukim Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan bearing the address No 59, Jalan 5, Taman Sri Semenyih, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("the said Property").
[4] In the previous Magistrate court Suit, LT Lee was represented by the solicitor firm the 4th Defendant herein (ie Messrs Yae, Seng Wai & Partners), and the 2nd and 3rd defendants were the advocates and solicitors in the said law firm who acted for LT Lee in that suit.
[5] Suppiah was represented by the law firm Messrs Tanes, Khoo & Paulraj ("TKP Law") in the previous Magistrate court Suit.
[6] Consent Judgment dated 9 August 2019 was entered into between LT Lee and Suppiah through their respective solicitors in the previous Magistrate court Suit in the following terms wherein "Plaintif" refers to LT Lee (landlord) and "Defendan" refers to Suppiah (tenant)(Exhibit "LLT-6"):
i. Defendan atau penama (nominee) Defendan membeli balik/kembali hartanah Plaintif yang beralamat di No 59, Jalan 5, Taman Sri Semenyih, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan yang terletak dibawah hakmilik bernombor HS(D) 6581, PT 566, Mukim Semenyih, Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai hartanah tersebut) bagi harga pembelian Ringgit Malaysia Seratus Sembilan Puluh Ribu (RM190,000.00) sahaja daripada Plaintif yang merupakan pemilik berdaftar yang sah bagi hartanah tersebut.
ii. Defendan atau penama (nominee) Defendan membayar harga pembelian hartanah tersebut kepada Plaintif dalam masa pada atau sebelum Empat (4) bulan daripada tarikh penghakiman persetujuan ini.
iii. Defendan atau penama (nominee) Defendan bersetuju untuk menyerahkan milikkan kosong hartanah tersebut kepada Plaintif yang pada masa ini diduduki oleh Defendan dalam masa Tujuh (7) hari dari tarikh tamatnya tempoh Empat (4) bulan dari tarikh penghakiman persetujuan ini sekiranya Defendan atau penama (nominee) Defendan gagal menyelesaikan harga pembelian sepenuhnya Ringgit Malaysia Seratus Sembilan Puluh Ribu (RM190,00.00) sahaja dalam tempoh Empat (4) bulan sepertimana yang dipersetujui oleh kedua-dua pihak.
iv. Defendan atau penama (nominee) Defendan membayar segala yuran peguamcara Plaintif, kos, duti setem pihak berkuasa bagi memindahmilik hartanah ini
